SLM Industry Day QA_15April2025.pdf

MH-60 Service Life Modernization (SLM) Industry Day held 18 March 2025 Questions and Government Responses posted 15 April 2025

Question from Industry #

Question Government Response

1 When can you provide the TRF?

The Technical Reference Framework (TRF) is currently targeted to be released in conjunction with the next Industry day event.

2 Which components do you already have Black Box Specs for?

No BlackBox Model Specifications are currently available for Service Life Modernization (SLM).

Are you interested in industry helping you build additional specs for any of our Major System Components?

No.

4 Are you considering any small business set asides?

We are still in the early stages of this project and have not yet reached a point where a determination regarding small business set asides can be made.

Will you consider a Commercial Solutions Offering (CSO) path for

COTS?

We will consider and evaluate all possible solutions that align with our objectives and requirements.

6 How can we best provide you relevant COTS?

The best opportunity for industry to provide what might be considered relevant Commercial Off The Shelf items would be under our RFI that should be release within the next 30 days.

Have you considered letting a contract for an Architect/Integrator role to augment your internal capabilities? So not quite an LSI but heavily focused on architecture and core infrastructure related to Gov Reference Architecture implementations.

We are in the early stages of this project and still evaluating the make-up and relevant skills sets needed as part of the Government team. We will continue to assess all relevant factors on how to augment our internal capabilities.

Are you planning for software to be developed and live in a Software CI/CD government owned pipeline?

Yes, we intend to use the Government Integrated Development Environment (IDE) to the maximum extent possible.

Can you identify your draft Major System Components and Modular System Interfaces?

We are still in the process of gathering that information. It will be shared incrementally, as the Government Furnished Model is compiled.

10 Do you have GPR on any of the OEM software on the platform?

The software on the platform is a mix between Restricted Rights and Government Purpose Rights.

The PMA-299 team would like to thank Industry for attending our Service Life Modernization Industry Day. We appreciate the positive responses and the questions we received via SAM.gov. While we are still very early in the planning stage and do not have comprehensive answers to some of the questions, the questions themselves provide industry perspectives and insights and will help shape the direction of our strategic thinking.

Are you interested in a 3rd party assessment of what could be reused and/or a roadmap to migrating away from that software over time vs an all or nothing approach?

Not at this time.

Have you considered using MOSA use cases as examples for the source selection criteria?

We are still in the early stages of this project and have not determined the Source Selection criteria.

I've just come across the Navy MH-60 Service Life Extension initiative and read that you hosted an Industry Day on this topic last week. Is it possible to register and receive the unclassified charts shown at that event?

We are not providing the Industry Day Briefs at this time. However, we are planned on hosting another Industry Day in Pax River, tentatively in September of 2025 so there will be future opportunities to learn about the program.

Can the USN publish a prioritized list of the MH-60 avionics components that are targets for obsolescence modernization or replacement?

This list is still being evaluated. More information should be provided at the next Industry day.

Given that the existing MH-60 aircraft subsystem interfaces are well-defined and given the importance of interface definition and management within MOSA frameworks, will the USN consider an early USN-managed and controlled definition of the DSDM as well as a constrained definition of recommended interface management tools?

Yes.

Does the USN plan on releasing a Training System Plan (TSP) for the MH-60 SLM concurrent with the RFP or will the TSP be contractor-developed after program initiation?

We are still in the early stages of this project and have not yet reached a point where a determination can be made in regards to a Training System Plan. As we evaluate all relevant factors, we will continue engaging with industry to gather insights and perspectives that will inform our decision-making process.

Does the USN plan on leveraging / modifying current training hardware for MH-60 SLM or are new facility and device requirements anticipated?

We are still in the early stages of this project and have not yet reached a point where a determination can be made in regards to training hardware. As we evaluate all relevant factors, we will continue engaging with industry to gather insights and perspectives that will inform our decision-making process.

Will the USN consider using the training device domain as a contractually-required means to demonstrate FACE UoC portability conformance? FACE UoC portability capabilities should provide significant benefit to the training domain by allowing high fidelity portable / rehosted operational flight program software to be used within training devices.

We will consider and evaluate all possible avenues to demonstrate and validate conformance to open standards.

Will the MH-60 SLM and FVL major OEM contracts include contractual requirements such as Associate Contractor Agreements associated with Digital Environment and OEM design data sharing to enable rapid and efficient training system development?

We are still in the early stages of this project and have not yet reached a point where a determination can be made.

The Government expressed a desire to maximize reuse from other services performing similar work. Some of these other programs have moved forward and utilized modern electrical distribution, specifically 270VDC versus the 3 phase 400Hz power used commonly on legacy AC (including the MH-60R and MH-60S). Does the government envision solving this problem at the aircraft level (change to generators, aircraft wide power convertors, or box unique convertors) or the LRU level (redesign to adapt the LRUs from other programs to meet the MH-60R/S power requirements)?

We are still in the early stages of this project and have not yet reached a point where a determination can be made in regards to electrical distribution options.

The notional architecture / functional breakout briefed by the Government included a separate “Digital Backbone” component.

What is the anticipated functionality of this component as compared to the other briefed components? Will this component include all computing, networking, and legacy adapters for all of the other computing elements, or will it only be a subset of these (e.g.

networking) and thus relying on the individual components to supply their respective computing elements? Similarly, with the desire to achieve MOSA, will the digital backbone also include “points-of-presence” throughout the AC (supplying networking, power, and ECS)?

We are still in the early stages of this project and have not started the functional decomposition down to the "digital backbone". The functional decomposition of the digital backbone (including "points-of-presence" if applicable), will be included as part of the Government Furnished Model.

The MH-60R and MH-60S are currently sold to multiple Foreign Military Sales (FMS) partner countries. Does the Government envision deploying the SLM Architecture to some or all of these countries? If so, will the requirement be for a single software release supporting each of these unique configurations, or will the Government desire a unique software release for each individual country?

The Government envisions deploying this SLM architecture to Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers, however, it is unknown at this time which FMS countries. We continue to evaluate the best course of action with regards to implementing FMS configurations, however, the desired goal would be to minimize the number of unique configurations.

Will there be unique requirements levied upon the contracted elements (Mission/Flight/Backbone) of SLM to interface to training systems?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer. We are continuing to evaluate all options to ensure the best course of action aligns with our objectives and requirements.

Will SLM have a Multiple Independent Levels of Security (MILS) requirement? If so, on what contracted elements (Mission/Flight/Backbone) of SLM will it be leveraged upon.

At this time we do not have a definitive answer. We are continuing to evaluate all options to ensure the best course of action aligns with our objectives and requirements.

What is the highest classification level anticipated for the contracted elements (Mission/Flight/Backbone) of SLM?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer.

Will any of the contracted elements (Mission/Flight/Backbone) of SLM have Cyber and/or Anti-Tamper Requirements applied to them?

Yes, Cyber and Anti-tamper requirements will be applicable.

How does the Government envision maintaining continuity between the legacy specifications on the platform and the interfaces defined by the architecture model, specifically while updates are being made in parallel to the SLM development period?

The Government envisions maintaining alignment via the Government Furnished Model and with model updates.

The notional architecture briefed by the Government suggested both a logical and physical separation between the safety critical and mission critical segments. Will the Government require both logical and physical separation, or will they consider a logical separation only? Does the Government have a preference between one approach or the other?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer, however the Government is leaning towards a physical separation. We are continuing to evaluate all options to ensure the best course of action aligns with our objectives and requirements.

With the LRUs/Sensors not being part of the SLM scope, will all data related to these LRUs/Sensors be provided as GFI to the SLM contractors?

The intent would be to provide the relevant data (Interface Control Documentss, interfaces, messages, etc.) as part of the Government Furnished Model.

Assuming that there will be ongoing changes to LRUs/Sensors throughout the execution of the SLM contract, will the Government be assuming responsibility of configuration management of these items, and reflecting this dynamic nature in the contracting approach to SLM?

The Government anticipates a direct role in Configuration Management and will consider updates of these configuration items in our contracting strategy.

With the LRUs/Sensors not being part of the SLM scope, will LRUs/Sensors be provided as GFE to each of the SLM contractors in order to build integration facilities and conduct Integration and Test activities?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer. We are continuing to evaluate all options to ensure the best course of action aligns with our objectives and requirements.

Are displays envisioned to be part of the Mission Segment, Flight Segment, or Digital Backbone segment?

Flight Displays are anticipated to be part of the Flight Critical Segment. At this time we do not have a definitive answer on the Sensor Operator Display.

The Government briefed a desire to minimize the training impacts of the SLM program. Does the Government therefore desire to minimize changes to the user interface as part of SLM, and largely keep the current “look and feel” of both the cockpit and sensor operator?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer. We are continuing to evaluate all options to ensure the best course of action aligns with our objectives and requirements.

Is there any prohibition for one company to be awarded scope for multiple acquisitions (e.g. Flight System, Mission System, and Backbone)?

Not at this time.

What simulation / stimulation equipment will be provided GFE / GFI to simulate the interfaces to all the equipment?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer.

Will there be a single configuration of LRU/Sensors to which the SLM system will be integrated with, or will every fielded permutation of the LRU/Sensors be a requirement of SLM?

The Government anticipates blocking Line Replaceable Units/Sensor(s) configurations to a baseline configuration for SLM. The Government is currently performing analysis to determine the required configuration.

When will a definition of all the various configurations of equipment on the MH-60R/S, both domestic and FMS, be provided along with the valid permutations to be supported?

The Government is currently performing analysis to determine the required configuration and will share it as part of the GFI model when completed.

Will the SLM mission system be required to replicate all the functionality of the current mission system?

The Government is still evaluating the required functionality and will provide a full decomposition of the functional requirements as part of the GFI model.

Will the SLM flight system be required to replicate all the functionality of the current flight system?

The Government is still evaluating the required functionality and will provide a full decomposition of the functional requirements as part of the GFI model.

Are there any GFI software modules that the USG will provide for use / incorporation into either flight / mission systems?

Potentially.

Who will be responsible of installed performance of the integrated sensors and where will requirements be sold off (lab, ground, and/or flight test)?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer. We are continuing to evaluate all options to ensure the best course of action aligns with our objectives and requirements.

42 Will SLM include any Crewed/Uncrewed Teaming requirements? Not anticipated at this time.

Has the Government provisioned for use of DO-297 Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) into the airworthiness certification processes? If so, will the Government support cross-service deployment of common architectures and implementations through reuse of existing DO-297 airworthiness artifacts?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer.

During the SLM RFP phase will current on-board sensors be re-competed?

The Government does not anticipate including any development of on-board sensors in the SLM Request For Proposal at this time, though that is subject to change as we continue to evaluate options and known obsolescence impacts.

Will the performance requirements of the current on-board sensors be updated for the SLM RFP?

If on-board sensors are included, then the expectation is the the performance requirements would be updated.

Will the SLM RFP phase allow for funding of additional sensor capabilities that deal with platform capabilities gaps?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer. However, addressing mission capability obsolescence/gaps is an opportuntiy with SLM.

Will the planned MH-60R architecture also include updates to the parent ship capabilities?

The Government is not able to fully interpret this question in order to provide an answer.

Is the expectation that the new architecture provides the same PILOT, TACO, SO functionality/use-cases?

The Government is still evaluating the required functionality and will provide a full decomposition of the functional requirements as part of the Government Furnished Model.

How will the system integration responsibility be divided? Will a single OEM serve as the lead system integrator?

At this time we do not have a definitive answer, however, we are investigating possible acquisition strategies with multiple integration vendors for different system modules as part of the DoD's pivot to a Modular Open System Approach.

Will the weapons system cloud be competed alongside the mission systems cloud?

The Government anticipates competing the weapon system integration alongside the mission system integration.

51 What is the expected TRL for any upgrades associated with SLM?

We have not defined a required Technology Readiness Levels for upgrades, however, the proposed upgrades will need to facilitate rapid integration with a targeted Initial Operational Capability in the mid 2030s.

Will the CDD under development for FVL(MS) in support of Gate 3 include requirements for MH-60 SLM including ALE?

The Government is just beginning its development of the Concept Of Operations and Cababilities Development Document for FVL(MS) and cannot answer the question about Air Launched Effects (ALE) requirements at this time. MH-60 SLM requirements will be developed separately, ahead of the FVL (MS) schedule, and are not anticipated to include requirements for ALE.

For the Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), will the Government require that only the platform level design for SLM be modeled, or will the Government require each of the subsystems (LRUs/sensors/etc.) that the architecture interfaces with be likewise modeled?

The Government currently anticipates only the platform level design and any new systems for SLM be modeled, with the caveat that any modified systems will also be considered for modeling where it makes sense.